cooponthewing 1,139 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, barca72 said: Although we have seen no numbers as yet, my grandkids want their strips and if Rangers are getting a reasonable deal then so be it. We need this to be a good income stream which can help the club. Not for me. I won’t give him a penny. I would rather donate £15-£20 direct to the club. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaspard 562 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, barca72 said: I haven't seen these conditions you have printed on your desk. I'm going purely on the fact that Rangers had negotiated a deal with a company which they were satisfied with, and I assumed it would not run for seven years. Now if at the end of the life of this contract Rangers could either re-up with the company or find some one more competitive that suited them better. Contracts have finite lengths, yeah? what you describe is whats just happened. 1/2 mill in legal costs to contest a contract WE signed just over a year ago. can't be that good. for what it worth i do not support a boycott though, if we have had to settle out of court we should accept the situation for now, get on with it, support our club through its retail division. does anyone think an embarge will make sd walk away empty handed? history tells us otherwise. somebody will make a few quid from a boycott but it won't be rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 45 minutes ago, barca72 said: I think if Rangers are going to get as good a deal with SD matching the other company then fans will buy merchandise. Surely this new deal can only last for the length of time that the other company had negotiated, and after that we would be free to go for whomever we wish? No one has seen any conditions yet. Many fans will not buy from SD so sales will suffer. SD have not given us a deal, and there is no deadline for that, so we will have to wait until that happens, so sales will suffer due to the delay. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Bluedell said: Many fans will not buy from SD so sales will suffer. SD have not given us a deal, and there is no deadline for that, so we will have to wait until that happens, so sales will suffer due to the delay. After what the fat man did to us I can't blame any fan who doesn't want to deal with Ashley, but I think the majority of the fans are prepared to buy merchandise as long as the club get a fair share. I don' see any advantage to SD by trying to elongate the process now, they want to make money too. Got to get some sleep now, it's after 4 a.m. in the colonies. Edited July 31, 2018 by barca72 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 9 hours ago, forlanssister said: It's plain as day it's not the end it's also plain the Club may have inadvertently made things harder for themselves. Sorry? They absolutely need to speak to lawyers hopefully not the same ones that f*&ked up here. Given Kings previous legal peccadilloes I have difficulty believing he takes the advice of lawyers on every step. Bottom line in this clusterf*&k is that Ashley's lawyers got the better of ours. Terms have been increased, we got rid of puma and have removed the 7 year notice period. Yesterday SD also lost out on some of their wants also. Each case for me brings us closer to disclosing the dealings of SD in the original deal. The judge has already spoke of his concerns towards SD and their behaviour. It's a death of a thousand cuts. Obviously when they spend double what we do on lawyers then it's hard to compete but we are getting there. Slowly but surely. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Ok...from reading info here.... Is it the case that the the Court actions have not actually resulted in SD being awarded a new contract, but instead it has supported their case to have the ability to match the JD deal. I get the impression that RFC were trying to side-step the who SD/matching side of things & just plowing ahead with JD. However, SD have won there point & will have the opportunity (based on specific details supplied by RFC) to decide IF they want to match & ultimately renew to term contract. Also, there is no noted time frame for this to happen, so SD could string this out for a while, which will ultimately delay the retail release of merchandise. There is also something that occurred to me - Puma & SD are closely tied with regard retail. Could Puma have a say in whether SD are able to sell Hummel merchandise. (note: This will have no bearing on the Hummel/Gers deal). The deal between Puma & SD may have some exclusivity clauses which restrict the sale of other brands. (note: absolutely no evidence or proof of this). As a result, Puma may actually have a say in whether SD ultimately submit a deal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, trublusince1982 said: Terms have been increased, we got rid of puma and have removed the 7 year notice period. Yesterday SD also lost out on some of their wants also. Each case for me brings us closer to disclosing the dealings of SD in the original deal. The judge has already spoke of his concerns towards SD and their behaviour. It's a death of a thousand cuts. Obviously when they spend double what we do on lawyers then it's hard to compete but we are getting there. Slowly but surely. It's lot to do about professional advice and decisions that are made based on that. We appear to be picking up their legal tab and that I think, reflects what has happened as a whole. Edited July 31, 2018 by buster. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaspard 562 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 8 minutes ago, Darthter said: Ok...from reading info here.... Is it the case that the the Court actions have not actually resulted in SD being awarded a new contract, but instead it has supported their case to have the ability to match the JD deal. I get the impression that RFC were trying to side-step the who SD/matching side of things & just plowing ahead with JD. However, SD have won there point & will have the opportunity (based on specific details supplied by RFC) to decide IF they want to match & ultimately renew to term contract. Also, there is no noted time frame for this to happen, so SD could string this out for a while, which will ultimately delay the retail release of merchandise. There is also something that occurred to me - Puma & SD are closely tied with regard retail. Could Puma have a say in whether SD are able to sell Hummel merchandise. (note: This will have no bearing on the Hummel/Gers deal). The deal between Puma & SD may have some exclusivity clauses which restrict the sale of other brands. (note: absolutely no evidence or proof of this). As a result, Puma may actually have a say in whether SD ultimately submit a deal. SD, sell replica kit from adidas, nike, new balance etc. can't see any issues with hummel that couldn't be overcome 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, buster. said: It's lot to do about professional advice and decisions that are made based on that. We appear to be picking up their legal tab and that I think, reflects on what has happened as a whole. Would assume part of our plan would be to wear them down, keeping them in court. How many sports firms do you think or sports teams will join with them going forward when they see court case after court case from their current "partners"? Sports direct are no mugs, they clearly don't play by the rules. Anyone thinking a fight against them will be easy, quick and cheap is just plain wrong. Watching through the press and from a distance it is impossible to understand the full goings on and to understand certain aspects without knowing the full picture. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, gaspard said: dart, i think it may be more accurate to say that most fans believed we would part ways with sd in 2018 or at least have an opportunity to do so. i certainly thought this was the case and the club statement at the time mentioned no fixed term to new deal. whilst this is technically accurate the reality is somewhat different. good grief, its just cost 1/2 a mill to contest a contract we signed just over a year ago. Yes, I did have to cause to mention this recently (cant remember where). Quite clearly a re-negotiated deal rather than a parting of the ways - I think you are right, it was wishful thinking that the ties had been severed, and that urban myth appears to have snowballed. Edited July 31, 2018 by D'Artagnan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.